9.
v
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. President,
This letter transmits a report entitled Accelerating U.S. Advanced Manufacturing, prepared by the Steering Com-
mittee of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0). The President’s Council of Advisors on Sci-
ence and Technology (PCAST) has reviewed and adopted the report, which follows up the first AMP report, Cap-
turing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing (July 2012), and the 2011 PCAST report,
Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing.
The members of AMP2.0 worked with industry, academia, labor, government, and the public to address the chal-
lenge of expanding advanced manufacturing across the United States. Led by co-chairs Rafael Reif, president of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Andrew Liveris, CEO of the Dow Chemical Company, AMP2.0
built its activities and recommendations on the three pillars established in the 2012 report: (1) enabling innova-
tion, (2) securing the talent pipeline, and (3) improving the business climate.
In the past year, teams of experts assembled by AMP2.0 identified manufacturing technology areas where the
United States could establish a strategic advantage. A coalition of community colleges and companies developed
a best-in-class apprenticeship model and launched a trial program with colleges in northern California and south-
ern Texas. The Printed Electronics Pilot Project uncovered the types of technical and market information that
small- and medium-sized manufacturers need to develop successful scale-up business plans. Five AMP2.0 re-
gional meetings throughout the year and Manufacturing Day on October 3rd
drove further momentum across the
country.
The project identified a number of further steps the Federal government can take to further U.S. advanced manu-
facturing capabilities. With the Manufacturing Innovation Institutes as a cornerstone of the Nation’s investment,
implementing a Federal strategic plan in advanced manufacturing across all Federal activities from the Institutes
to individual agency program areas is one important step. Two others are (1) ensuring that advanced manufactur-
ing research addresses questions along the pipeline of technology maturity and (2) leveraging Federal organiza-
tions to improve information flow to manufacturers.
To ensure a cohesive Federal effort, PCAST recommends that the Executive Office of the President develop and
release, within sixty days, a plan for the implementation of the AMP2.0 report’s recommendations.
Advanced manufacturing is a domain of great potential, the achievement of which will require drawing on re-
sources from the public, academic, and industrial sectors all across the country. The Federal government can and
should continue to catalyze the needed effort. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important
topic.
Best regards,
John P. Holdren
Co-chair, PCAST
Eric S. Lander
Co-chair, PCAST
14. 1
Executive Summary
The United States has been the leading producer of manufactured goods for more than 100 years,
and the manufacturing sector is once again adding jobs and opening new factories at its fastest
rate in two decades. The United States has long thrived as a result of its ability to manufacture
goods and sell them to global markets. Manufacturing drives knowledge production and
innovation in the United States by supporting two‐thirds of private sector research and
development and by employing the vast majority of U.S. scientists, engineers, and technicians to
invent and produce new products. Yet, in the 2000’s, manufacturing faced major employment
declines as factories were shuttered. U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and
technologies that have sustained American leadership in manufacturing are under threat from
new and growing competition abroad.
In its July 2012 inaugural report, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive
Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, the first Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP)
called for a full court press to increase U.S. competitiveness for advanced manufacturing by
sustaining U.S. investments in science, technology, and innovation; establishing a National
Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes—a set of public‐private partnerships to build
shared high‐tech facilities and advance U.S. leadership in emerging technologies; upgrading
community‐college workforce training programs and deploying the talent of returning veterans
to meet critical manufacturing skills needs; and improving the business climate for manufacturing
investment through tax, regulatory, energy, and other policies.
Building upon its initial findings and growing interest in a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector,
the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership was re‐chartered (AMP2.0) and has worked with the
federal government to implement the highest priority recommendations from its original report.
These AMP2.0 efforts from September 2013 to September 2014 included scaling of promising
manufacturing workforce innovations and partnerships, and identifying new, concrete strategies
for securing the nation’s competitive advantage in transformative emerging technologies.
As a result, this report reflects not only the significant actions taken by the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership and its members to launch public‐private initiatives that build on its
initial recommendations, but also offers a series of further recommendations on enabling
innovation in critical emerging manufacturing technologies through additional investments in
15. 2
innovation, securing the talent pipeline and improving the business climate for innovative
manufacturing firms.
Recognizing that the U.S. manufacturing sector draws its strength from a multitude of tightly
linked capabilities contributed by the private sector, academia, and labor, in its work and
membership the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has reflected the broad partnership
required from across communities, educators, businesses, organized labor and government at all
levels to accelerate U.S. advantage in advanced manufacturing. And through its regional working
sessions and forums, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee has
engaged the broader manufacturing community to highlight examples of innovative strategies
that build U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
As manufacturing grows and strengthens in the United States, a broad public‐private coalition
has emerged in support of American manufacturing. We have capitalized on this growing
coalition and the consensus among policymakers, industry experts and academia that U.S.
manufacturing matters to apply coordinated action to begin implementing the above
recommendations. Already we are seeing impact from these actions ‐ from the creation of a
broad national manufacturing strategy to the launch of regional apprenticeship pilot programs.
From these strong beginnings, we call for a sustained and coordinated effort to maintain
momentum and engagement across the United States.
ENABLING INNOVATION
The United States’ leadership in manufacturing comes from its leadership in advanced
technologies and the innovation that fuels their discovery and adoption. When the United States
competes in manufacturing and wins, the United States competes on the basis of this
sophistication and the ability of its manufacturing industry to produce products with incredible
new capabilities and functions. Sustaining U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing is thus,
ultimately, an exercise in staying at the forefront of new technologies and continually breaking
boundaries in both what and how it can be manufactured.
Advanced manufacturing is broadly defined and represents a continuum of interests in the
manufacturing sector. Indeed, from basic metals to aerospace and electronics, manufacturing
increasingly depends on advanced manufacturing components, technologies, processes, skills
and strategies. To compete in the future requires a continuous transformation of manufacturing
to meet the challenges posed by globalization and change.
16. 3
The following recommendations build on the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership’s previous
report and reflect further guidance on how the United States can sustain its lead in innovation
while securing critical leadership in transformative, emerging technologies:
Establishing a National Strategy for Securing U.S. Advantage in Manufacturing Technologies:
Aligning on the most important technologies for U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing, and a
shared vision for how to advance them, creates a platform for public‐private collaboration
nationally on the shared research agendas and investments required to secure and sustain a U.S.
lead in these technologies. A national technology strategy outlining specific efforts and
investments across the federal government and the private sector, and created and regularly
updated with input from leading technologists across industry and federal labs, can optimize the
nation’s investment in manufacturing technology development. Critically, this national
manufacturing technology strategy will provide for coordinated investments across the lifecycle
of technology development, manage the investment portfolio and drive sustainable models of
collaboration between the federal government and the private sector.
Over the past year, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 has piloted a process for
developing a national manufacturing technology strategy focused on three emerging
technologies of national importance – advanced sensing, controls, and platforms for
manufacturing (ASCPM); visualization, informatics & digital manufacturing (VIDM); and advanced
materials manufacturing (AMM) – that can serve as a model for a broader effort to develop a full
national manufacturing technology strategy.
Recommendation #1: Establish a national strategy for securing U.S. advantage in
emerging manufacturing technologies with a specific national vision and set of
coordinated initiatives across the public and private sectors and all stages of technology
development. This should include prioritized manufacturing technology areas of national
interest, leveraging the technology prioritization and analysis process developed by the
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and should facilitate management of the portfolio
of advanced manufacturing technology investments.
Coordinating Public and Private Investment in the Development of Top Emerging Manufacturing
Technologies: From the experience of piloting a process for developing a national strategy to
secure domestic advantage in just a subset of the important manufacturing technologies being
developed today, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognizes the value of regular and
sustained communication and research coordination across the public and private sectors, as
well as how valuable the access to top industry technologists can be for the federal government
as it develops its own efforts to advance U.S. strengths in pre‐competitive manufacturing
17. 4
technology. Building off of the increased interagency coordination on manufacturing generally
made possible by the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, which the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership recommended in our prior report, we recommend that a continuous
mechanism for research coordination across the public and private sectors, with expert input
from industry and academia, be established. An Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium
can provide detailed, coordinated input on nascent opportunities and priorities in manufacturing
that can shape national U.S. technology priorities and investments at all stages of technology
development. This group, modeled after or using existing mechanisms such as the external
advisory groups to the Executive Office of the President’s National Science & Technology Council,
could interface regularly with a standing interagency manufacturing R&D coordinating body
comprising the key research and development agencies to provide feedback and partnership in
the federal government’s research and development priorities in advanced manufacturing. In this
way, strategies for advanced manufacturing technologies could be linked to an R&D strategy.
Recommendation #2: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium to
provide coordinated private‐sector input on national advanced manufacturing
technology research and development priorities.
In addition, in its pilot efforts to prioritize and develop recommendations for specific
manufacturing technology areas, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership identified a cross‐
cutting need for two new public‐private research and technology efforts to spur the further
development and adoption of these emerging technologies: the need for additional research and
development infrastructure in the form of manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) to create
a pipeline of earlier‐stage technologies that can feed into the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation Institutes; and the importance of manufacturing technology testbeds
(MTTs) that can de‐risk the adoption of these emerging technologies, particularly for smaller
manufacturers. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership also noted the importance of security
at the interface between cyber systems and physical manufacturing equipment.
In addition to fully building out the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), the
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends the creation of manufacturing centers of
excellence (MCEs) that can advance earlier‐stage technologies. Manufacturing centers of
excellence are research laboratories, funded and operated jointly by industry and universities, to
invest in basic research that responds to a particular manufacturing challenge, such as critical
materials reprocessing or bonding of composite structures. These manufacturing centers of
excellence can leverage existing, successful U.S. research center models co‐funded by federal
agencies and industry, such as National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers. New,
and potentially existing, centers within this program and other agencies’ center programs could
18. 5
be focused on advanced manufacturing R&D as manufacturing centers of excellence, supporting
existing or potential Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. These manufacturing centers of
excellence could be co‐located within U.S. regions shared with related Manufacturing Innovation
Institutes, when feasible and advantageous to accelerated manufacturing technology maturation
within the institutes. Manufacturing technology testbeds, which provide access to equipment
and facilities designed for the testing and demonstration of new technologies, will enable
evaluation, development, demonstration, and customization services to small, medium, and
large enterprises, and vendors for technologies that are at later stages of development. They help
de‐risk the implementation of available technologies and help develop a talent and knowledge
base for the technology or sector. Manufacturing technology testbeds are particularly needed to
drive adoption of advanced technologies such as sensing, process control and IT platforms that
can increase the efficiency of energy and materials use in advanced manufacturing. They can
also be useful for projects that demonstrate a new production concept, increased energy or
resource efficiency, or to validate a production technology against an industry standard.
Manufacturing technology testbeds can also be leveraged as shared facilities with appropriate
technical (computing and tool) and talent infrastructure, enabling small‐ and medium‐sized
enterprises (SMEs) to adopt new technologies and increase rapid value creation which is not
possible without the availability of these shared facilities.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new public‐private manufacturing research and
development infrastructure to support the innovation pipeline, which complements
Manufacturing Innovation Institutes at earlier and later technology maturation stages,
through the creation of manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) and manufacturing
technology testbeds (MTTs) to provide a framework that supports manufacturing
innovation at different stages of maturity and allows small and medium‐sized enterprises
to benefit from these investments.
Development of standards reduces the risks for enterprises developing solutions and for those
implementing them, accelerating adoption of new manufactured products and manufacturing
methods. The federal government should work with private industry to establish standards and
interoperability for manufacturing new products and processes. This effort includes standards
related to digital data, with an aim of data interoperability among systems that can speed
technology adoption. Examples of such data transferability standards include communications
protocols, metadata description languages, and data formats. Additionally, this effort addresses
addresses the advantage of standardization for components that are physically substitutable –
including information exchange standards related to materials and manufacturing processes – in
focused sector areas that facilitate industry adoption of innovations by established or new
manufacturers. This effort further includes cybersecurity process certification in manufacturing,
19. 6
not unlike ISO certification of other manufacturing processes, that can mitigate security risks at
the interface of the cyber systems and physical equipment in the manufacturing ecosystem.
Recommendation #4: Develop processes and standards enabling interoperability of
manufacturing technologies; exchange of materials and manufacturing process
information; and certification of cybersecurity processes for developers of systems.
Establishing and Supporting the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI): In its
initial report, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership called for the creation of a National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) to spur public‐private collaborative research to
address large, cross‐cutting technology challenges for later stage technologies. The Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership supports the Administration’s actions thus far to launch four
manufacturing institutes (Table A1 of Appendix A) addressing critical manufacturing technologies
such as advanced composites, digital manufacturing, and lightweight metals, with four more
manufacturing institutes on the way. In support of these nascent efforts to develop the National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation and in anticipation of bipartisan legislation to formally
establish the program, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends the development
of a shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Governance Structure to help ensure
a return on investment for Manufacturing Innovation Institute stakeholders. This governance
structure should be established through clear, written guidelines covering both network
governance and institute topic selection, and these guidelines should reflect multiple future
scenarios for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: a scenario in which it is fully
authorized and a scenario in which it continues to be developed solely through executive action
that uses existing funds of federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Department
of Energy. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership proposes a governance structure that
maintains autonomy for individual institute operations while creating a public‐private network
governing council that oversees the broader performance of the network and helps to ensure
maximum efficiency, collaboration and sustainability of the individual institutes.
Recommendation #5: Create – through the National Economic Council, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and the implementing agencies and departments – a
shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) governance structure
that can ensure a return on investment for the NNMI’s many stakeholders by including
input from various agencies as well as private sector experts, organized labor and
academia.
20. 7
SECURING THE TALENT PIPELINE
Simply said, global businesses invest where the talent exists. The 2014 Manufacturing Institute
survey, “Out of Inventory,” reports that 75 percent of manufacturers surveyed are impacted
negatively by skills shortages. Technological developments in the manufacturing sector have
outpaced workforce skills, and demographic shifts have combined to create a gap in the
workforce the manufacturing sector needs. The Manufacturing Institute notes that the hardest
jobs to fill are those that have the biggest impact on performance, that manufacturers depend
on outdated approaches for finding the right people and developing their employees’ skills, that
the changing nature of manufacturing work is making it harder for talent to keep up, and that
the widening skills gap is expected to take the biggest toll on skilled production jobs.
The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognizes that in order to accelerate manufacturing
innovation and growth in the United States, we must focus on developing a talented and
committed workforce, and that the way in which that will happen is through public‐private
partnerships. Manufacturers, organized labor and academia also realize that identifying and
responding to technological innovation can be expensive and time‐consuming for any single firm,
and thus it will be necessary that these opportunities are best addressed through partnerships
of committed and motivated groups of firms and educational institutions. The challenge
manufacturing firms face in filling the talent pipeline is compounded by the misperceptions the
general public has about careers in manufacturing, and AMP2.0 addressed this critical aspect to
help secure the sector’s future workforce.
Shifting the Misconceptions the Public Holds of Manufacturing: For decades, workers flocked to
manufacturing careers because those jobs were viewed as stable, solid careers that provided a
path to the middle class for workers at every educational level. That belief has been shaken by
the job losses of the past decades. The first step in securing the talent pipeline for manufacturing
is to shift how manufacturing careers are perceived, and this will require a focused and sustained
national and local effort. AMP 2.0 is partnering with private industry and media to create and
launch a series of advertisements and events, including National Manufacturing Day, to convey
the current excitement about and opportunities in manufacturing careers.
The AMP2.0 SC recommends that the federal government launch a national campaign to change
the image of manufacturing, and also undertake activities to support National Manufacturing
Day. The AMP2.0 recommends that efforts to change the image of manufacturing include efforts
modeled on exemplary programs that strive to interest students in advanced manufacturing and
product realization starting at early ages and through graduate education.
21. 8
Recommendation #6: Launch a national campaign to change the image of manufacturing,
and support National Manufacturing Day’s efforts to showcase real careers in today’s
manufacturing.
Connecting More Americans with Skills for Successful Careers in Manufacturing: Building on its
recommendations in its first report, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has also taken new
action to secure the talent pipeline and connect more Americans with the skills needed for
successful careers in manufacturing. These efforts have been focused in four areas: developing a
national system of skills certifications and accreditation, tapping the talent pool of returning
veterans, investing in community colleges by building successful apprenticeships to deliver
demand‐driven training, and documenting best practices in the development of career pathways
in advanced manufacturing education.
Credentials and accreditations are the outcomes of many years of skilled trades training and
hands‐on learning through apprenticeships. These professional credentials are a gateway to
higher wages, increased career mobility and provide an employee the ability to follow the job
market. The relevance of credentials and accreditations can vary regionally, or by employer, and
is of course highly dependent on the specific job opening. The Advanced Manufacturing
Partnership, as it recommended in its first report, encourages the partial funding and
implementation of a system of nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications
that employers can preferentially utilize in hiring and promotion.
To help advance the development of a national system of skills certification and accreditation,
the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has developed a template for a “pathways” model for
advanced manufacturing training and education with multiple on‐ and off‐ramps and multiple
stackable completion options including industry‐recognized certificates, formal diplomas, and
college degrees. It is also important to include on‐line training as a key component of these on‐
and off‐ramps, recognizing that new and mature students require flexibility and convenience as
they pursue skill and career development. These certifications and online training platforms can
leverage prior investments in the Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Assistance‐Community
College and Career Training (TAACCCT).
Recommendation #7: Incent private investment in the implementation of a system of
nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications that employers utilize in
hiring and promotion, by providing additional funds that build on investments being made
through the Department of Labor and Department of Education Trade Adjustment
Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT).
23. 10
in manufacturing, and provided recommendations for skills translators and Veterans’ Skills
Badging programs.
To ensure the sustainability and accessibility of the workforce development best practice tools
created by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, the Manufacturing Institute has
volunteered its resources and platform to curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that
have been created by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, helping to further scale and
replicate these important talent development opportunities.
Recommendation #9: Curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that have been
created by AMP2.0 to further scale and replicate these important talent development
opportunities, via the Manufacturing Institute.
Finally, although AMP’s actions and recommendations on workforce training focused chiefly on
strengthening the role of community colleges within the pipeline, AMP2.0 also recognizes unique
needs and opportunities for four‐year colleges, universities, and graduate programs in educating
leaders who develop and implement advanced manufacturing technology. Most U.S.
undergraduate engineering programs are reviewed by the Accreditation Board of Engineering
and Technology (ABET). ABET should consider potential changes in the engineering curriculum
requirements that include advanced manufacturing skills. Further, U.S. graduate programs (M.S.,
Ph.D., and M.B.A.) should consider specific skillsets and areas of high interest and demand in
manufacturing, including opportunities for the public and private funding of graduate fellowships
as noted in Appendix 1.
IMPROVING THE BUSINESS CLIMATE
As countries compete for the advanced manufacturing industries that provide the foundation for
future innovation, it is critical that the United States offer an environment where young
companies are able to demonstrate the viability of new technologies at scale and where mature,
main street manufacturers are able to access the capital and capabilities they need to expand
into new business opportunities. Unlike services and software, manufacturing requires unique
capital that often cannot be rapidly brought on line or redeployed for other uses. Long time lines,
higher technology risk, and large capital requirements combine to create a risk profile
unacceptable to many investors. In addition, many connections between manufacturers and the
capabilities, know‐how, and capital for expansion need to be rebuilt after the last decade of lost
growth in the manufacturing sector.
24. 11
Expanding and Enhancing Intermediary Solutions for Manufacturing Expertise: Small and medium
manufacturers can adopt and leverage manufacturing technologies more readily when improved
access to information is provided via “intermediary services” – established organizations that
understand and facilitate access to a wide range of information needed for technology
commercialization and scale up, including technical expertise, supply chain partners, financing
options, and government programs. AMP2.0 provided three key design characteristics for
successful intermediaries including 1) regional scope, 2) technology or industry specific focus,
and 3) service provision to a network of firms rather than a single firm. The Manufacturing
Extension Program is one example of an intermediary that could be enhanced or configured to
meet these key design criteria. In addition, accurate market and technical insight is critical for
small and medium manufacturers to develop an entry strategy, and mobilize resources to adopt
new technologies for processes, materials, and new products. Shared facilities with effective
technical and talent, including the manufacturing technology testbeds, will also enable digital
design and manufacturing to be realized by networks of small and medium‐sized enterprises.
AMP2.0 conducted a pilot project to outline an approach for small and medium‐sized
manufacturers to access market and technical insights required to scale‐up new technology.
Tools developed from the pilot could be utilized by an intermediary to support small and
medium‐sized manufacturers in developing a business plan for scale‐up.
Recommendation #10: Leverage and coordinate existing federal, state, industry group
and private intermediary organizations to improve information flow about technologies,
markets and supply chains to small and medium‐sized manufacturers.
Increasing capital access for established and start‐up firms: Advanced manufacturing small and
medium‐sized manufacturers (SMMs) often are not compelling investments for capital markets
due to technology risk, market adoption risk, long lead times to significant revenue and significant
capital requirements. Reducing capital requirements is one way that government has encouraged
manufacturers through grants, loan guarantees and tax deferrals. Frequently overlooked are the
other means that investments can be made more attractive to capital markets through demand
creation, reducing technical risk, and reducing development time. For example, by offering low‐
cost loans to private‐sector investors in “first‐of‐a kind” production facilities, a public‐private
Scale‐Up Fund could incentivize additional investment in novel production facilities. Similar
incentives at the regional and national levels can also help create a vibrant, domestic equipment
supply base for specific nascent technologies such as in additive manufacturing. In addition,
existing federal programs and authorities can use the preannouncement of their future demand
to reduce the market risk of new technologies, and thereby increase their attractiveness for
investment.
25. 12
Recommendation #11: Reduce the risk associated with scale‐up of advanced
manufacturing by improving access to capital through the creation of a public‐private
scale‐up investment fund; the improvement in information flow between strategic
partners, government and manufacturers; and the use of tax incentives to foster
manufacturing investments.
In addition to its efforts this year to further develop and implement its recommendations on
critical emerging technology areas, securing the talent‐pipeline, and creating a supportive
environment for innovative manufacturing businesses, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
reiterates the recommendations on tax and regulatory policy advanced in its original report. The
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership supports the Administration’s efforts regarding
retrospective review to streamline regulations to create a more competitive environment for
manufacturing. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership also emphasizes the importance of
passing fundamental business tax reform while deepening those incentives designed to
encourage the long‐term establishment of capital‐intensive and space‐intensive manufacturing
operations as part of coordinated national strategies to become manufacturing leaders in a
specific sector.
IMPLEMENTATION
Ongoing efforts over the last five years have required substantial coordination across federal
agencies and collaboration with the private sector. To ensure successful implementation of the
above recommendations addressed to the federal government, sustained leadership from the
Executive Office of the President (EOP) is a necessity. The Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) and the National Economic Council (NEC) have naturally played central roles in
moving multi‐agency initiatives forward, including the implementation of key recommendation
from previous PCAST reports on advanced manufacturing. In addition to EOP leadership and
deep engagement, clear accountability across multi‐agency initiatives is critical to accelerate
needed outcomes.
Recommendation #12: The National Economic Council (NEC) and the Office of the Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), within 60 days, should submit to the President a set of
recommendations that specify: (1) the ongoing EOP role in coordinating the federal
government’s advanced manufacturing activities; and (2) clear roles and responsibilities
for federal agencies and other federal bodies in implementing the above
recommendations.
26. 13
I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0
Introduction
The United States has long thrived as a result of its ability to manufacture goods and sell them to
global markets. Manufacturing supports the country’s economic growth, leading the Nation’s
exports and employing millions of Americans. In addition, manufacturing drives knowledge
production and innovation in the United States by supporting two‐thirds of private sector
research and development and by employing the vast majority of U.S. scientists, engineers, and
technicians to invent and produce new products1
.
The United States has been the leading producer of manufactured goods for more than 100 years.
Yet, in the 2000’s, manufacturing faced major employment declines as factories were shuttered.
U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and technologies that have sustained American
leadership in manufacturing are under threat from new and growing competition abroad.
U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and invention that have sustained American
leadership in manufacturing remain under threat from new and growing competition abroad.
The United States has been losing significant elements of research and development linked to
manufacturing, as well as the ability to compete in the manufacture of many products that were
invented and innovated here. And other countries have been stepping up their investments in
manufacturing and in research, eroding the United States’ lead.
Beginning in 2011, the United States began a series of national‐level discussions and actions
between the public and private sectors to ensure this country is prepared to lead the next
generation of manufacturing. Those activities, which came to be called the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership, promise a new era of manufacturing in this country.
This report describes the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0)’s actions and
recommendations for accelerating progress along three integrated pillars that together can
strengthen the U.S. ecosystem for advanced manufacturing leadership: Enabling Innovation,
Securing the Talent Pipeline, and Improving the Business Climate. These recommendations focus
on both federal actions and public‐private partnerships that can accelerate U.S.‐based
1
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Ensuring America’s Leadership in Advanced
Manufacturing, June 2011
28. 15
the implementation status of the recommendations made by PCAST to the Federal government
through the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership report of July 2012.
In September 2013, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0) convened the second
phase of the partnership. AMP2.0 was charged by PCAST to develop specific, targeted, and
actionable recommendations, building on the recommendations in the 2012 report, which would
improve and sustain U.S. manufacturing innovation. Through a vibrant collaboration among
industry, academia, labor organizations, and government agencies, AMP2.0 made significant
progress toward this goal, recommending paths for sustained government engagement on
advanced manufacturing with private organizations at local, state, regional, and national levels.
AMP2.0 members further led private sector activities set out in the 2012 Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership recommendations for the industrial, nonprofit, and academic
manufacturing communities.
In its efforts, the AMP2.0 SC called on the expertise of 43 college and university faculty and
administrators, 51 industry leaders and employees, four labor group representatives, and six
independent experts for the working teams, in addition to the contributions from countless
participants at regional meetings, roundtables and via other forum.
AMP 2.0 Steering Committee Actions & Recommendations
The AMP Steering Committee put forth a set of recommendations in 2012 around three pillars:
Enabling Innovation, Securing the Talent Pipeline, and Improving the Business Climate. The
AMP2.0 Steering Committee’s actions and further recommendations are offered to accelerate
manufacturing innovation and growth, ensuring global competitiveness of the U.S.
manufacturing sector, and fueling the innovation economy.
The significant body of work accomplished by AMP2.0 includes the development of national
strategies piloted on three of the technologies identified by the Advanced Manufacturing
Partnership in its first report as technology areas of high national priority. Through piloting a
process for creating national technology strategies, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
identified a need for sustained public‐private coordination channels for manufacturing
technology investments and identified new forms of research and development infrastructure
that can help advance a cross‐cutting set of technologies. Because new advanced manufacturing
technologies will require a skilled workforce, AMP2.0 has also implemented several concrete
actions to accelerate jobs‐driven workforce training primarily through partnerships between
local academic institutions and local employers. A focus on these best practices and participation
of all stakeholders (government, industry, and academia) has led to new innovations in the
delivery of workforce training. Finally, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 has focused
31. 18
Pillar II: Securing the Talent Pipeline
Recommendation #6 Launch a national campaign to change the image of manufacturing
and support National Manufacturing Day’s efforts to showcase real
careers in today’s manufacturing sector.
Recommendation #7 Incent private investment in the implementation of a system of
nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications
that employers utilize in hiring and promotion, by providing
additional funds that build on investments being made through the
Department of Labor and Department of Education Trade
Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training
(TAACCCT).
Recommendation #8 Make the development of online training and accreditation
programs eligible to receive federal support through federal jobs
training programs.
Recommendation #9 Curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that have been
created by AMP2.0 to further scale and replicate these important
talent development opportunities, via the Manufacturing Institute.
Pillar III: Improving the Business Climate
Recommendation #10 Leverage and coordinate existing federal, state, industry group
and private intermediary organizations to improve information
flow about technologies, markets and supply chains to small and
medium‐sized manufacturers.
Recommendation #11 Reduce the risk associated with scale‐up of advanced
manufacturing by improving access to capital through the creation
of a public‐private scale‐up investment fund; the improvement in
information flow between strategic partners, government and
manufacturers; and the use of tax incentives to foster
manufacturing investments.
Each of these three pillars – enabling innovation, securing the talent pipeline, and improving the
business climate – are mutually reinforcing and individually important for securing sustained U.S.
leadership in advanced manufacturing and innovation. Below, the Advanced Manufacturing
32. 19
Partnership 2.0 discusses in detail its findings, activities, and latest set of recommendations
within each pillar for strengthening U.S. advanced manufacturing.
Implementation of these recommendations directed toward the federal government requires
coordination among and action plans by federal agencies and bodies. This is addressed in the
final recommendation of this report:
Implementation
Recommendation #12 The National Economic Council (NEC) and the Office of the Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), within 60 days, should submit to
the President a set of recommendations that specify: (1) the
ongoing EOP role in coordinating the federal government’s
advanced manufacturing activities; and (2) clear roles and
responsibilities for federal agencies and other federal bodies in
implementing the above recommendations.
33. 20
II. Recommendations
Pillar 1: Enabling Innovation
Leadership in innovation and manufacturing technologies can cement the basis for sustained U.S.
competitiveness in manufacturing. However, maintaining that leadership position requires a
clear focus and coordinated effort to invest in technologies of national priority. Technology
breakthroughs that can take innovations out of a lab and into production, require shared
infrastructure to support cross‐cutting discoveries. Not least among this shared infrastructure is
the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
Focusing resources on priority opportunities to develop technologies that can sustain U.S.
leadership in advanced manufacturing is the first important step in accelerating innovation in
manufacturing technology. AMP2.0 developed and implemented a process by which several
potential high‐impact technologies were prioritized. Three technologies were elevated for
further analysis by industry, organized labor and academic experts based on their potential for
cross‐cutting impact on U.S. advanced manufacturing industries, broad private sector pull,
importance to national security, and their ability to build long‐term U.S. competitiveness in
advanced manufacturing: Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platforms for Manufacturing (ASCPM);
Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies (VIDM); and Advanced
Materials Manufacturing (AMM).
Because the discoveries and investments needed to build a U.S. advantage in these technologies
are often beyond the resources of one firm and benefit from insights from multiple disciplines
and industries, shared infrastructure is a key enabler to support and promote the efficient
development of new technologies. At earlier stages of development, co‐investments in basic
research for manufacturing applications can build a pipeline of discoveries leading to real
technological advancement and, for those technologies that are ready to deploy, technology test
beds can help de‐risk the adoption of these technologies, especially for small and medium‐sized
manufacturers, helping ensure that cutting‐edge technologies make their way onto U.S. factory
floors. Industry‐developed standards play a similar role in helping speed the adoption of new
technologies.
The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, recommended in the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership’s first report, provides critical shared infrastructure to take
technologies from research to late‐stage technologies that are close to deployment. The creation
34. 21
of four pilot manufacturing institutes and the pledge to launch four more this year represent a
significant step towards creating the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and
addressing the gap in shared manufacturing research infrastructure. Already, the pilot
manufacturing institutes are illustrating the advantages of public‐private partnerships and shared
infrastructure to streamline and de‐risk the process by which new manufacturing technologies
are made real. It is critical, however, to ensure the long‐term return on investment of these
manufacturing institutes, and this is best done through the creation and implementation of
standard principles for the protection of intellectual property and a strong governance body.
Establishing a National Manufacturing Technology Strategy
The research and innovation ecosystem of a nation is highly dependent on the presence of a
manufacturing base that provides constant feedback in terms of technology problems and
challenges to be solved.
Since technology is rapidly and continually advancing, one of the key goals of the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership was to develop and establish a permanent mechanism to identify the
next generation of advanced manufacturing technologies that will have the greatest impact on
the growth and competitiveness of the United States, and to provide technical insight into the
opportunities and obstacles each critical technology will face as it progresses towards
commercialization.
Unlike the United States today, many leading industrialized countries follow a systematic
prioritization and planning process that is explicitly aligned to their national interests and
strategies. For the United States to benefit from a similar exercise in defining a national vision for
advanced manufacturing technologies and a shared set of research and development priorities
to advance them, any national prioritization effort in the United States must build on the
strengths of our decentralized research and development efforts and industrial base. An
approach to developing national technology strategies in the United States should capitalize on
the flexibility of the U.S. academic‐industrial partnership afforded by technical and community
colleges, universities, and national and military research laboratories. These public‐private
partnerships, with input from the workforce itself, can accelerate the efficient and cost‐effective
commercialization of new technologies by de‐risking the investment during development.
The three interrelated mechanisms proposed below – an advisory mechanism, coordination of
advanced manufacturing R&D, and a strategy process – will be critical parts of the national
strategy and could help ensure a highly effective public‐private partnership for advanced
manufacturing upon conclusion of the AMP2.0 effort.
35. 22
In order to support a relevant, sustainable and transparent national strategy for advanced
manufacturing, AMP2.0 used three key manufacturing technology areas as examples of the
power and potential of scoping and prioritizing technology strategies. As detailed in Appendix 1,
these areas were prioritized among the 11 MTAs listed in the AMP 2012 report, using four
criteria:
1. Industry/market pull
2. Cross‐cutting impact across multiple industry sectors
3. Importance to national security and competitiveness
4. Leverages current US strengths/competencies
This process analyzes the current technology readiness, timeline to advance the technology, and
the gaps or obstacles that must be addressed. This analysis can, and should, inform the national
manufacturing strategy and portfolio prioritization within and among federal agencies, and be
kept relevant with periodic reassessments.
Using this prioritization and technology assessment process, AMP2.0 created strategies for three
transformative manufacturing technologies: Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platforms for
Manufacturing (ASCPM); Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies
(VIDM); and Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM).
Appendix 1 includes a high‐level summary of this effort, and Annexes 1‐10 provide nine letter
reports detailing the technology gaps and recommendations for the three Manufacturing
Technology Areas (MTAs) that AMP2.0 prioritized for this assessment. The findings from the
analyses for each of these MTAs are noted in Table 1. These three MTAs are described briefly as:
• Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platforms for Manufacturing (ASCPM): A new generation of
network‐based information technologies has created access to new uses of data and
information as new products and manufacturing methods are developed. These technologies
make a seamless interaction between cyber and physical assets possible. The research in this
space is focused on embedded sensing, measurement and control systems with scalable IT
platforms.
• Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies (VIDM): This technology
is important as researchers and manufacturers move from digital design, to planning, to
purchasing and delivery of raw materials, and finally to the manufacture of customized
products. One aspect of the technology deals with supply chain efficiency, and the other
aspect deals with the speed with which products are designed, manufactured and brought to
market. The research in this space is focused on embedded sensing, measurement and
36. 23
control systems into materials and technologies. When this link is strong, it increases
productivity, product and process agility, environmental sustainability, improved energy and
raw material usage, better safety performance and improved economics.
• Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM): Novel new materials are being designed at a
quickened pace over the last decade due to better modeling technology and high‐throughput
research. Materials innovation is a key to U.S. competitiveness, given the historic national
security implications of unstable supplies of important materials, and their improved
environmental profile over traditional materials. AMM is focused on the design and synthesis
of new materials, as well as innovative approaches to processing of traditional materials.
Because the materials are so different, AMP2.0 has prepared three additional letters, each
analyzing one specific aspect of advanced materials manufacturing: (1) advanced structural
composites; and (2) biomanufacturing [of biological therapeutics]; and (3) critical materials
reprocessing. See Appendix 1 for drivers motivating analysis of manufacturing in these three
areas.
Table 1. AMP2.0 technology strategy recommendations for three prioritized Manufacturing
Technology Areas.
Technology
areas:
Advanced Sensing,
Control, and Platforms
for Manufacturing
Visualization,
Informatics and Digital
Manufacturing
Advanced Materials
Manufacturing
R&D
Infrastructure to
Support the
Innovation
Pipeline
Establish
Manufacturing
Technology Testbeds
(MTTs) to
demonstrate the use
of and business case
for new
technologies,
including “smart
manufacturing”
capabilities.
Create a
Manufacturing
Center of
Excellence (MCE),
focused on basic
research at earlier
technology
development
levels, on the
Digital Thread,
including tools for
digital design and
energy efficient
digital
manufacturing.
Launch Materials
Manufacturing
Centers of
Excellence
(MCEs) to
support R&D in
topics that
support MIIs and
other
manufacturing
technology areas
in the national
strategy.
37. 24
The National
Network for
Manufacturing
Innovation
Establish an institute
focused on ASCPM
for energy use
optimization in
energy‐intensive and
digital information‐
intensive
manufacturing.
Launch a Big Data
MII focused on
secure analysis of
and decision‐
making via large,
integrated data
sets for
manufacturing
processes (in
addition to the
current Digital
Manufacturing and
Design Innovation
Institute).
Leverage supply
chain
management of
defense assets
to spur
innovation and
RD&D in critical
materials
reprocessing.
Public‐Private
Technology
Standards
Develop new
industry standards,
including data
interoperability
standards for key
systems and vendor
support.
Craft and deploy
policy standards for
manufacturing
cyber‐physical
security and digital
data exchange and
ontology.
Design data
standards for
material
characterization
to enable rapid
uptake of new
materials and
manufacturing
methods
Additional
Strategies
Incentivize creation
and
commercialization
of additive
manufacturing
systems providers,
service bureaus or
system integrators.
Establish
Manufacturing
Innovation
Fellowships for
Ph.D.’s in key
AMM areas,
such as
biotherapeutic
manufacturing.
AMP2.0’s process demonstrated that the following considerations critically impact technology
strategy development and deployment. First, the technology vision must include technologies at
38. 25
different stages of maturity. Second, equal consideration must be given to the technology push
from academia and government research, and to the market‐pull perspectives of industry and
other agencies. Third, the engagement of interagency experts and research leaders would
provide valuable information to inform the national strategy. Fourth, many government
mechanisms such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and M‐TAC pilots being initiated
by NIST exist to drive manufacturing technology development and should be considered and
leveraged when appropriate to implement strategies.
The three pilot technology strategies developed by AMP2.0 proved the usefulness of a public‐
private partnership to inform the prioritization and analysis of key technologies. For the pilot
technology strategies, expert teams focused on individual technologies while enlisting broad
engagement of experts from companies and universities alongside input from federal research
and development agencies. Along the way, this engagement process spurred additional
integration and alignment across the individual technology development efforts of companies,
universities, and federal agencies The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0’s technology
strategy development process also made clear the importance of coordination across the federal
research and development agencies, given their roles in advancing different stages or aspects of
any individual technology.
Recommendation #1: Establish a national strategy for securing U.S. advantage in
emerging manufacturing technologies with a specific national vision and set of
coordinated initiatives across the public and private sectors and all stages of technology
development. This should include prioritized manufacturing technology areas of national
interest, leveraging the technology prioritization and analysis process developed by the
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and should facilitate management of the portfolio
of advanced manufacturing technology investments.
The pilot national strategies in these three technology areas that emerged, and are detailed in
the appendix and annexes to this report, identified opportunities for private partners and many
existing federal programs to coordinate public and private investments in addressing significant
research questions that need to be solved for an individual technology to advance.
Going forward, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends the creation of a standing
process to develop national technology strategies in advance manufacturing and of a mechanism
to continually engage the private sector for its insights on the state of technology and to enable
the coordination of public and private investments in technology development. In addition to
leveraging the improved interagency coordination on manufacturing initiatives spurred by the
Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, the creation of national technology strategies
39. 26
and R&D coordination in manufacturing could be modeled off of the interagency process
currently used by the Executive Office of the President’s National Science and Technology
Committee which currently crafts national research and development strategies in a range of
technology areas. In addition, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 recommends that
the federal government create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium, leveraging
leading technologists from across industry and universities, to provide a continuous channel for
the federal government to access private sector insights in crafting the national technology
strategies and to ensure ongoing coordination of public and private investments.
Recommendation #2: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium to
provide coordinated private‐sector input on national advanced manufacturing
technology research and development priorities.
In addition to research areas that could benefit from coordinated public and private investment,
in each technology area, the expert teams identified a similar need for shared, public‐private
research and development infrastructure to help advance more industry‐focused basic research
at the front‐end of the technology development pipeline, to harness efforts across industry,
universities, and agencies to address key technology challenges at later stages of development,
and, once technologies were available, to de‐risk their adoption on U.S. factory floors, especially
for small and medium sized manufacturers.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new public‐private manufacturing research and
development infrastructure to support the innovation pipeline, which complements
Manufacturing Innovation Institutes at earlier and later technology maturation stages,
through the creation of manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) and manufacturing
technology testbeds (MTTs) to provide a framework that supports manufacturing
innovation at different stages of maturity and allows small and medium‐sized enterprises
to benefit from these investments.
To spur more industry‐focused basic research in advanced manufacturing at the front‐end of the
innovation pipeline, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 recommends the creation of
Manufacturing Centers of Excellence, basic research laboratories jointly funded and operated by
industry and universities addressing targeted industry technology needs. In many cases, these
basic research centers can ensure that there are sufficient early‐stage manufacturing
technologies that can ultimately feed in to the later‐stage development and deployment driven
by the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
40. 27
For example, in visualization, informatics, and digital manufacturing, the Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 expert teams identified a need for a manufacturing center of
excellence focused on improving the capabilities of technologies, primarily software, which
connects the “digital thread” or secure flow of digitized information between design, simulation,
and production stages. The expert team investigating advanced materials manufacturing
identified a need for manufacturing centers of excellence in materials processing science and
manufacturing engineering needed for industrial applications, such as composites joining or
critical materials reprocessing. In both instances, these manufacturing centers of excellence
would be investing in basic research “upstream” from existing or new manufacturing innovation
institutes that are envisioned to comprise the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
Historically, the National Science Foundation has funded Engineering Research Centers in
advanced manufacturing fields that have united $3‐4 million in federal funds for engineering
research at leading universities with significant co‐investments from a broad range of industry
partners. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership believes that this model provides a useful
template for the design, operations, and creation of Manufacturing Centers of Excellence. New,
and potentially existing, centers within this program and within other agencies’ center programs
could be focused on advanced manufacturing R&D as manufacturing centers of excellence,
supporting existing or potential Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. Here, we note that
manufacturing centers of excellence provide R&D at early technology readiness
level/manufacturing readiness levels, and can thus include manufacturing technology areas not
yet sufficiently mature for or prioritized as Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs). Likewise,
manufacturing centers of excellence initiated to support existing MIIs provide a stream of early‐
stage technology innovation as input for MIIs that are, by design, focused at higher
technology/manufacturing readiness levels. Manufacturing centers of excellence should be co‐
located within U.S. regions shared with related Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, when
feasible and advantageous to accelerated manufacturing technology maturation within the
institutes. Here, the definition of “region” can vary broadly among manufacturing technology
areas, and can include corridors spanning multiple geographically contiguous states, as well as
virtual regions of related manufacturing capabilities, industries, and workforce.
At the opposite end of the technology development pipeline, many new technologies that are
already available for deployment face slow adoption, as individual manufacturers struggle to
quantify the value of those new technologies compared with the risk of being an early adopter.
To help de‐risk the adoption of available technologies – for example, many technologies in the
advanced sensing, control, and platforms area – manufacturing technology testbeds (MTTs) can
provide shared equipment and infrastructure for manufacturers to demonstrate, evaluate, and
41. 28
explore customizing new technologies. Especially for small‐ and medium‐sized manufacturers
(SMMs) who can rarely afford to build their own testing infrastructure – and for whom a
technology failure could be more catastrophic –these manufacturing technology testbeds can
significantly de‐risk the implementation of available technologies and also contribute to the
development of a talent and knowledge base in the use of that technology. And in many cases,
manufacturing technology testbeds can lead to further insights about the use of a technology in
production or help validate a production technology against an industry standard. While the
range of federal investment in a manufacturing technology testbed varies across manufacturing
technology areas, in general, a manufacturing technology testbed can be created with $5 to $10
million of federal or state funds matched by an equivalent amount or more of private sector
investment.
AMP2.0 emphasizes that the envisioned role of the manufacturing centers of excellence and
manufacturing technology testbeds is primarily to support the early‐stage and late‐stage
readiness levels of manufacturing technologies developed within Manufacturing Innovation
Institutes. Coordination and leveraging across this innovation pipeline that comprises research,
development, demonstration, and deployment is expected. At the same time, the manufacturing
centers of excellence also provide the United States a coordinated means to remain at the cutting
edge of manufacturing technology innovation, including in emergent areas that may later be
identified and prioritized as Manufacturing Innovation Institutes; while the manufacturing
technology testbeds address a critical need for small and medium‐sized manufacturers to test
and adapt matured technologies including but not limited to Manufacturing Innovation Institute
output.
Finally, across all three pilot technology strategies, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
2.0’s expert teams identified a need for new industry‐driven standards to help spur the adoption
of new technologies, products and manufacturing methods. Standards allow a more dynamic and
competitive marketplace, without hampering the opportunity to differentiate. Development of
standards reduces the risks for enterprises developing solutions and for those implementing
them, accelerating adoption of new manufactured products and manufacturing methods. The
federal government should work with private industry to establish standards and interoperability
for manufacturing new products and processes. This includes data standards for the
interoperability of manufacturing hardware and software to speed the adoption of new digital
manufacturing techniques, the use of advanced sensing, controls, and platform technologies, and
new cybersecurity standards in manufacturing that can mitigate security risks at the interface of
the cyber systems and physical equipment in the manufacturing ecosystem, important again for
the development of digital manufacturing and the use of advanced sensors.